I think there is a broader problem with social science, not just history.
On the one hand, to affirm their status as sciences, social science try to invent laws, systems and rules to describe reality. On the other hand, social science is afraid of pushing too far into bibliography and neuroscience, because that would demolish the Enlightement beliefs behind modern social sciences. Thus, social sciences are stuck in primitive gotcha explanations.
I guess a way out would be to split social sciences into two distinct pursuits. History, which should be like detective work, focused on uncovering complex mechanism behind events. And something sociobiology-like, which would study the reality of human nature. These two intellectual pursuits can be complementary, but will follow distinct approaches and patterns of thinking.
Starts well, but falls to pieces in about the last half. The anger takes over. "People who can't think in systems" is used as a club after many paragraphs promoting prosopography. We're informed that something "just sucks." The end reads as if the writer gave up because he was late for an important appointment: "These things need a name, and they often don't." Don't what?
I make this criticism because the contrast between the start and the finish is striking. It's like seeing Aristotle transmorgrifying into a pissed-off teenager who has something better to do.
Brilliant piece. With this, you earned a subscribe. Keep up the excellent writing!
I think there is a broader problem with social science, not just history.
On the one hand, to affirm their status as sciences, social science try to invent laws, systems and rules to describe reality. On the other hand, social science is afraid of pushing too far into bibliography and neuroscience, because that would demolish the Enlightement beliefs behind modern social sciences. Thus, social sciences are stuck in primitive gotcha explanations.
I guess a way out would be to split social sciences into two distinct pursuits. History, which should be like detective work, focused on uncovering complex mechanism behind events. And something sociobiology-like, which would study the reality of human nature. These two intellectual pursuits can be complementary, but will follow distinct approaches and patterns of thinking.
Starts well, but falls to pieces in about the last half. The anger takes over. "People who can't think in systems" is used as a club after many paragraphs promoting prosopography. We're informed that something "just sucks." The end reads as if the writer gave up because he was late for an important appointment: "These things need a name, and they often don't." Don't what?
I make this criticism because the contrast between the start and the finish is striking. It's like seeing Aristotle transmorgrifying into a pissed-off teenager who has something better to do.
Boring